Tapatalk and ForumRunner users: A vulnerability in Vbulletin allowed hackers to insert redirect links to some crappy filemanager software. We have disabled plugins and custom bb tags temporarily just to be safe until Vbulletin releases a fix. Please bookmark forum.destructoid.com instead of using google's links to avoid old cached pages that might redirect you.

Let the Bush Tax Cuts expire. Propose re-instating tax cuts, but not for the super wealthy. If republicans say no, their allegiances will never be clearer and an angry Republican middle class (along with everyone else) can vote them out next election.

If it's not already clear enough at this point it probably never will be.

And that's it. Are you really willing to play chicken with two million people's livelihoods just to get an extra 100 or 200 billion in revenue over 10 years by keeping the bracket at 250k? Really guys? You're going to stall unemployment checks to families just for some chump change? That's some Republican rigidity right there.

Take a second to realize that if this deal goes through, we'll have gotten Republicans to vote for raising taxes. Also realize that there was no way in a million years that Congress would have ever given the President control of the debt ceiling--that was always a pipe dream that no amount of leverage could have gotten. That is one of the few tools the Congress has to counteract the executive branch. If you want it, you're going to have to pry it from their cold, dead hands. This debt ceiling battle coming up is inevitable.

And we still have the Republicans by the balls by not addressing the spending cuts in the defense budget in a few months. Their sacred cow is still on the chopping block while we've gotten 90% of what we wanted off it.

Originally Posted by LA Times

As the price for lifting those defense cuts, White House officials have said, the president will demand another round of revenue increases through closing tax loopholes and other measures. That would bring the overall revenue total close to what Obama had originally wanted — if he can prevail.

Obama made that point himself, in an afternoon statement that sought to reassure restive Democrats that he would not allow Republicans to push through a deal with only spending cuts.

"If Republicans think that I will finish the job of deficit reduction through spending cuts alone," he said, "that's not how it's going to work."

"Revenues have to be part of the equation in turning off the sequester, in eliminating these automatic spending cuts," he said.

But we don't even know for sure that the House will even go for all of this. "We could have gotten more" is going to look rather silly if House Republicans shoot this deal down.

And it looks like the deal is falling apart in the House. Not enough spending cuts for the Republicans. Cantor openly defied Boehner in the conference committee. The vote on the Senate bill has been postponed indefinitely. They're going to try to attach an amendment with more spending cuts and then kick it back to the Senate. The Senate is already saying "fuck that."

Any last comments were when everything was still in infancy so I'm not sure if/what anything had changed since then (of your "what we get points, I was only aware of #1 and #2 at the time) , but there were still plenty of issues last I saw.

It permanently extended the Bush tax cuts for incomes up to $400,000 (single) and $450,000 (joint) while extending refundable tax credits for the poor (child tax credit, enlarged EITC, and tuition tax credit) for only five years. Stuff like that seems inexcusable at this point.

But you're saying the deal did end up with a tax raise on 400k and up, so I'll have to go see what's up.

From my understanding it also only got about half the revenue the president's plan called for from the highest tax brackets.

But I've not done any paying attention since that morning so I'll spend some time catching up today.

@Steven -- The deal was in place as of 1 PM Monday, so I don't know if I'd say that it was in its infancy at the time (but at this point, I'm just being nitpicky). The tax credits extended were never meant to be permanent, nor should they be in my opinion. I don't see why people should get a tax break for having children--if anything, I'm being taxed for being both single and childless since I'm not eligible for either of those credits. Also, those tax rates are "permanently" set in place, but not indefinitely. It's not like they'll never be raised again.

$5 million was exempted from the estate tax because it hurts a lot of small businesses and farmers. Capital assets, such as land and equipment, are counted in the value of an estate. This causes family farms to have to sell off some of the business just to give Uncle Sam his check.

@usedtabe -- Always glad to see Europeans embracing the stupider aspects of fascism while decrying the smarter ones. Not that I agree or disagree with the measure, but the enthusiasm for it just strikes me as humorous. I'm too much of a meritocrat to ever buy into that racial/cultural superiority bullshit.

I suppose it would be more accurate to say I caught brief highlights right around when it was being finalized, then, rather than having caught anything in full. Was just keeping up on Twitter while making breakfast, or something.

I don't mind tax breaks for children because of the long term. Better than children being a more undue strain on parents. Sure, if you're going to have a kid should plan ahead etc. idealistic, but that's not going to happen. Better to try to make sure kids don't end up raised poor and terribly, even if it's a bit of a bandaid measure.

Cheers on the 5 mil info. Sensible, even if there's a part of me irritated by the idle rich not getting some of their funds cut into.

If there are families with children who need help, then they should be given help. But those tax write-offs are passed out like candy to a lot of families who don't need them (including the people up top that everybody despises). It's the same deal with the tuition credit as well. But at the same time, these were measures passed to help people during a turbulent time that we're still not quite out of, so I find their extension to be a good thing for the time being. I'd have extended them for 2 years as opposed to 5 though.

Either way, I'm still being punished for not being married and not having kids. There are two ways to look at the issue.

I'm pretty excited for this. I liked Current TV in its original carnation with user-submitted videos and documentaries, but I'd rather have a straight-forward news channel over the liberal propaganda organ that Current has become lately.

I just want the news. Keep your opinions to yourself—I can form my own.

It permanently extended the Bush tax cuts for incomes up to $400,000 (single) and $450,000 (joint) while extending refundable tax credits for the poor (child tax credit, enlarged EITC, and tuition tax credit) for only five years. Stuff like that seems inexcusable at this point.

Sunsetting provisions are a good thing: They force reevaluation of laws by the legislative. Five years is pretty standard in US federal law (see the relevant clauses in the USA PATRIOT Act, for example), too.

The Bush tax cuts have been extended 2 times (once under Bush, once under Obama) at least, for example.